Colorado’s fifth congressional district, contained entirely within El Paso County and composed largely of Colorado Springs, has been held by a Republican since the district was created more than a half-century ago. Doug Lamborn coasted to easy victories to retain the seat for nine terms – 18 years in office.
Lamborn was succeeded in the 2024 election by Jeff Crank, a radio talk show host and political consultant, who defeated Democrat River Gassen 54.7% to 40.9%.
Crank is now looking to retain his seat against one of two Democratic primary candidates, Joe Reagan and Jessica Killin. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC) believes the seat is winnable this year, hailing the district as “the most Democratic-trending congressional district in the nation.” Read more about that here.
Crank is rated as 98% Conservative by Heritage Action, a lobbying organization tied to the Heritage Foundation, architects of Project 2025.
Here are some of Crank’s votes from his first term:
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act
H.R. 1, July 3, 2025
Crank voted ‘Yea’ and touted his vote in an editorial in The Gazette.
Argument for the OBBBA:
The OBBBA is one of the largest tax cuts in American history, does away with taxes on tips and overtime, ensures Medicaid is funded for those who need it, secures our border, and empowers the administration to follow through on their policy platform. It expands consumer choice by ending government overreach like EV mandates. It also incentivizes a road back to self-sufficiency for those receiving federal benefits like Medicaid and SNAP by requiring that those who can work do work.
Read more:
The Tax Foundation
Rep. Tim Walberg press release
Rep. Crank press release
Bipartisan Policy Center
Argument against:
The Congressional Budget Office states this bill “will result in a net increase in the unified budget deficit totaling $3.4 trillion over the 2025-2034 period … That increase in the deficit is estimated to result from a decrease in direct spending of $1.1 trillion and a decrease in revenues of $4.5 trillion.” The decrease in spending stems from a roughly $1 trillion cut in Medicaid funding. Rather than encouraging those receiving benefits to return to work, which about 70% of recipients already do, it will simply result in the loss of health care for around 11 million Americans. The tax cuts also don’t strongly benefit average Americans, but instead tilt in favor of high earners and the very wealthy.
Read more:
Congressional Budget Office
Center for American Progress
Immigration and ICE
Laken Riley Act
H.R. 29/S. 5 – January 7 & 22, 2025
Crank voted ‘Yea.’
Argument for the Act:
After Laken Riley, a 22-year-old nursing student, was murdered by an undocumented immigrant, the Laken Riley Act was designed to ensure that dangerous criminals in this country illegally would not be able to continue harming or killing American citizens. It mandates that ICE/DHS detain undocumented immigrants who have, or are suspected to have, committed crimes. After President Biden’s open borders, it’s a necessary safeguard to protect American lives and welfare.
Read more:
Rep. Crank press release
Argument against:
Though the immigration system needs significant overhaul and the people of this country should feel safe, this bill is an overreach that deprives undocumented residents of due process by treating those charged with crimes the same as those convicted of them. We should not abandon the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” for anyone. It is also too broad in the crimes that trigger DHS involvement, including nonviolent crimes like shoplifting.
Read more:
Center for Immigration and Refugee Advancement
Rep. Seth Moulton press release
Funding ICE and CBP through 2029
S. 2 – June 9, 2026
Crank voted ‘Yea.’
Argument for funding: Multi-year funding for the agencies is necessary to protect them against government shutdowns and continuing resolutions as their consistent operation is necessary for our national security. This funding is reflective of the agencies’ normal funding and a defense against Democrats who seek to defund the agencies that keep our border secure and protect us from often violent immigrants.
Read more:
Federal Budget IQ
Argument against: This reconciliation bill lacks any process for accountability and oversight of agencies that are responsible for the recent killings of multiple American citizens. Reasonable requirements like body cameras, judicial warrants, or limited use of masking would protect American citizens and non-citizens alike from overreach and abuse. Reconciliation, the process used for the passage of this funding, is also outside of normal appropriations processes for already well-funded agencies.
Read more:
American Immigration Council
National Taxpayers Union
Tariffs
Prior to his term in Congress, Crank had spoken against tariffs, saying in a 2024 interview with CPR, “I generally oppose tariffs on foreign goods because those tariffs end up being paid by the American consumer in the form of higher prices.”
Various bills that sought to end or limit tariffs
H.J.Res. 72 – February 11, 2026, and procedural votes on H.Res. 211, H.Res. 313, and H.Res. 707
Crank voted against ending tariffs in all instances.
Argument for tariffs:
Strategic tariffs correct trade imbalances in a way that were historically, and wrongly, expected to be self-correcting. At the same time, they bolster American industries by protecting them from cheaper foreign competitors. This is good for American workers because tariffs protect high-paying manufacturing jobs while also creating a source of revenue for the American government that can be returned to workers. Tariffs also protect our national security by removing our dependence on foreign countries.
Read more:
The Federalist Society
American Compass
Argument against:
Tariffs are ultimately a tax on American workers, not a protection for them, and that tax is not offset by the revenue collected through tariffs. The increased costs of importation doesn’t automatically stimulate new industries or bolster existing ones. Instead, higher costs lead to less consumption and hurt American industries that depend on American consumers. While the manufacturing of some goods, like semiconductors, is good for the economy and national security, that’s better addressed through investment instead of protective tariffs.
Read more:
Harvard Kennedy School
Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management
Rep. Crank, on Colorado Public Radio
Voting rights
SAVE America Act
H.R. 22 & S. 1383 – April 10, 2025 & February 11, 2026
Crank voted ‘Yea’ both times.
Argument for the Act:
Requiring proof of citizenship to cast a ballot and requiring states to have a process for removing non-citizens from voting rolls guarantees that American elections are for Americans only. We are already required to provide proof of citizenship in order to drive a car or fly on a plane. Thirty-six states already require some form of ID in order to vote. This bill would only close the gap of the remaining 14.
Read more:
Rep. Crank press release
Argument against:
The SAVE Act attempts to solve a non-problem. Documented instances of non-citizens voting are incredibly rare. Instead, this bill will disenfranchise legitimate voters who are unable to produce the required documentation which goes beyond a simple driver’s license, something that non-citizens are allowed to acquire and carry. This Act would require presentation of a passport or, alternatively, a driver’s license with a birth certificate. Half of Americans have no passport and many don’t have easy access to a copy of their birth certificate.
Read more:
Bipartisan Policy Center
Brennan Center for Justice
Public lands
Selling off of public land
Crank stated in an interview with CPR in June of 2025 that he’s opposed to the selling of public lands.
Amendments to the OBBBA regarding the sale of public lands
Amodei/Maloy introduced amendment mandating the selling of public lands, heard by the House Natural Resources Committee – May 6, 2025
Crank voted ‘Yea.’
Neguse introduced amendment to prohibit selling of public lands, heard by the House Natural Resources Committee – May 6, 2025
Crank voted ‘Nay.’
Argument for selling of public lands:
Western states are often overwhelmingly federal public lands which hinders housing and infrastructure development. By selling public lands near population centers, housing costs can be eased and the revenue can be used to reduce the federal deficit. By coordinating the sale of this land with state and local governments, federal goals can be met while respecting state and local needs and interests.
Read more:
Rep. Mark Amodei press release
Colorado Public Radio
Argument against:
As presented, the amendment to mandate selling public lands lacked transparency, was introduced through improper process, and doesn’t provide for use restrictions or the affordable housing it claims to support. It also jeopardizes critical wildlife habitats and indigenous tribal resources. Using the sale of public lands to offset the budget deficit is unsustainable and unprinciple.
Read more:
Legal Planet
Colorado Public Radio
Center for Biological Diversity
Public Lands Access Restoration Act (PLARA)
H.R. 7979 – still in subcommittee
Crank sponsored this legislation, though no formal vote has yet been held.
Argument for PLARA:
Before 2005, public lands were more often available to the public for any recreational use. After a regulatory decision that year, vast amounts of that land have been unavailable for use with motorized vehicles. In Colorado, only 8% of trails are open to motorcyclists and nearly half of public lands do not allow motorized use of any kind. Public lands should be available to a wide range of users, including motorcyclists and off-road enthusiasts.
Read more:
Rep. Crank press release
Argument against:
Off-road vehicles cause erosion, disrupt wildlife, spread invasive weeds, destroy vegetation, damage waterways, and can harm archaeological sites. PLARA doesn’t just re-open public lands to destructive motorized use; it creates unreasonable standards for future closures of any part of any public land. Closure to motorized vehicles should remain the default with any opening of public lands requiring justification, not the other way around. On top of that, this would add an enforcement and signage burden to agencies already cash-strapped and spread thin.
Read more:
High Country News
WildEarth Guardians
Deregulation
RED Tape Act
This Act removed the EPA’s Section 309 which provides for EPA review of and public comment on federal environmental permitting.
H.R. 6398 – April 16, 2026
Crank voted ‘Yea.’
Argument for the Act:
EPA review in Section 309 is redundant to environmental analysis already required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). This keeps the NEPA review, but removes the duplicative EPA review which serves only to delay permitting and construction, unnecessarily hindering economic growth and development.
Read more:
Energy and Commerce Subcommittee, US House of Representatives
Argument against:
Section 309 is not redundant, but instead a meaningful independent environmental review. Removing it weakens oversight of federally permitted projects, amounting to a handout for the oil and gas industries who will now be more able to pollute, destroying environments and making people sick. Limiting analysis to NEPA removes vital independent review and public disclosure and input.
Read more:
Legis1
